D&D General [rant]The conservatism of D&D fans is exhausting.

[pemerton]

What I want to know is what happens if a PC has been told that there are runes of importance to him in the ruined castle, but he keeps failing the rolls. Do more and more runes keep showing up until he eventually succeeds and finds the ones that say what he hopes they will say?

Yep. Pink elephants also ride in on little tricycles, while Vecna turns up in a clown car.

I can't believe it's taken you so long to work out what all my RPGing looks like!

 

[AlViking]

This language of "the GM allows" is, to me, a hallmark of GM-driven/GM-centred play.

If by that you mean the GM is responsible for the world, it's inhabitants and how they respond to the characters, sure. If you mean heavy handed GM railroad, no.

 

[pemerton]

That’s some sweet passive aggression.

Especially because the claim that failure means less noise assumes that (for instance) failure can't include things like making a noise louder than intended by hitting something with a hammer; forgetting to oil the hinges and so having them squeak; etc. Which is to say, it assumes that the failure is mostly a success!

 

[Hussar]

To for instance state that RuneQuest would clearly help them get a better simulation without even knowing what they try to simulate seem like a quite extraordinary claim.

Ahh, this nails down the issue here.

I am in no way making any sort of qualitative judgement about better or worse. I'm not. I'm in no way saying that RuneQuest (for example) would be a "better" system to use for simulation.

No.

I'm saying that mechanics which do not provide any input into how the result was achieved are not simulationist mechanics. Which, really, covers the idea that the DM provides the input. After all, a freeform system where the DM simply provides the narrative is, in a way, a simulation.

But, that doesn't change the fact that the simulation is completely divorced from the mechanics that created that result. The mechanics are simply giving you some sort of result. Which means that the mechanics are not simulating anything. And we know they aren't simulating anything because if they were simulating something, we would have some indication as to how that result occured.

You keep trying to take this to a higher altitude and say, "Well, because the DM is providing the narrative, then the system is simulationist because the system includes the DM". Which, fair enough I suppose. That's a pretty solid argument. But, my arguement is that while the DM might provide the narrative, that doesn't mean that the mechanics are now suddenly simulationist. After all, in pretty much all RPG's, the DM/GM will provide the narrative. But, in some systems, that narrative is generated in part by the system itself, rather than just free form added on after the fact.

And it is those systems, which generate some part of the narrative, which are what I consider simulationist. @AlViking has repeatedly pointed to the blog post that dovetails nicely with what I'm saying. Simulationist mechanics must be diegetic. They must provide some information as to how something happened. That's what diegetic means. Something cannot be diegetic without providing some clue as to how a result was achieved.

 

[pemerton]

If by that you mean the GM is responsible for the world, it's inhabitants and how they respond to the characters, sure. If you mean heavy handed GM railroad, no.

What I mean by that is that the GM is establishing the bulk of the fiction: the setting, the situation, the consequences of action declarations.

 

[Old Fezziwig]

Yep. Pink elephants also ride in on little tricycles, while Vecna turns up in a clown car.

I can't believe it's taken you so long to work out what all my RPGing looks like!

 

[Hussar]

Has the cook's existence been established prior to the roll for case (2)? If not, I find it nonsensical.

So, it's nonsensical for anyone or anything to be on the other side of a door?

Established how? By whom? Since, presumably, the PC's haven't been in the kitchen before, how, exactly, would you establish that?

From the player's POV, there is absolutely no difference here. And, again, I'd point out that it's a very common mechanic in modules - "If the PC's spend X time, or make "too much" noise in this location, X monsters arrive." None of that is established beforehand. It's all random.

Just like the cook being there.

 

[Hussar]

and some of us believe that those implied servants ought to exist in a more defined state than just being an in-potentia obstacle to be sprung on a player as a result of a failed check

yeah, a lockpicking check and a stealth roll, but we wouldn't conflate those two into part of the same action resolution because they're different actions, and failed actions don't demand consequences for some of us beyond 'you don't succeed' so two rolls is less of a risk of creating problems.

Except that the actual argument is that there is no difference between the implied servants existing in-potentia, and a random encounter roll, and a sharp rock cutting my rope on a failed check.

In all three cases, a random die roll determines the reality of the world. There's no difference. The different apparently lies in some of them being "simulationist" because people like them, and others not being simulationist becuase they don't like them.

 

[AlViking]

What I mean by that is that the GM is establishing the bulk of the fiction: the setting, the situation, the consequences of action declarations.

Is the GM responsible for the bulk of the world building fiction? Sure, unless they're using published materials. Is the GM responsible for the bulk of the decisions and action that happens in play? Not in the games I run.

 

[hawkeyefan]

Especially because the claim that failure means less noise assumes that (for instance) failure can't include things like making a noise louder than intended by hitting something with a hammer; forgetting to oil the hinges and so having them squeak; etc. Which is to say, it assumes that the failure is mostly a success!

Yeah, we went over so many iterations that could easily get the cook and door scenario to work.

What I’ve learned is that if someone is dead set on a conclusion, they’ll ignore or dismiss any argument or evidence to the contrary.

So, it's nonsensical for anyone or anything to be on the other side of a door?

Established how? By whom? Since, presumably, the PC's haven't been in the kitchen before, how, exactly, would you establish that?

From the player's POV, there is absolutely no difference here. And, again, I'd point out that it's a very common mechanic in modules - "If the PC's spend X time, or make "too much" noise in this location, X monsters arrive." None of that is established beforehand. It's all random.

Just like the cook being there.

Yeah, it’s “nonsensical” only if you start with the expectation that the cook is in a set place, predetermined ahead of play. Which honestly isn’t even how I’d handle it in D&D… so I suppose pretty much all my gaming is “non-sensical”.

Yet somehow, my method meets the criteria established to be simulationist! It’s remarkable!

Is the GM responsible for the bulk of the world building fiction? Sure, unless they're using published materials. Is the GM responsible for the bulk of the decisions and action that happens in play? Not in the games I run.

Really? How are they not?